[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20220407112345.148316-1-michael@walle.cc>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 13:23:45 +0200
From: Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
To: broonie@...nel.org
Cc: Manohar.Puri@...rochip.com, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com, claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, kavyasree.kotagiri@...rochip.com,
krzk+dt@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
tudor.ambarus@...rochip.com, Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: atmel,quadspi: Define lan966x QSPI
> > @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ properties:
> > - microchip,sam9x60-qspi
> > - microchip,sama7g5-qspi
> > - microchip,sama7g5-ospi
> > + - microchip,lan966x-qspi
>
> Generally DT compatibles should be for specific SoCs rather than having
> wildcards in them, even if that means you have to list a lot of SoCs.
> Having used wildcards in the past doesn't mean it's a good idea to
> continue adding them!
The subject should also be prefixed with "dt-bindings: ".
Mark, I did a git log on
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/atmel,quadspi.yaml and all the
subjects are without "dt-bindings:" although the original patch was with
that prefix [1]. Is that intended?
-michael
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/163962128492.2075495.3678727080606971257.b4-ty@kernel.org/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists